Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
110 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 108 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,180 Year: 6,292/6,534 Month: 485/650 Week: 23/232 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8579
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 61 of 1309 (722903)
03-25-2014 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Theodoric
03-25-2014 5:05 PM


theo writes:

Yes it is but that argument is a strawman in the general context. Homosexuals can reproduce. That they cannot from the act is a strawman.

Yes, but it was fairly clear that Faith was trying to argue that because homosexuals can't reproduce (by having sex with other homosexuals) there's evolutionary pressure for the trait to be eliminated - which is a reasonable point to make.

Now there's lots of explanations why that's wrong, but they can be argued without all the bigot accusations. (I am, of course, aware of Faith's previous offences in this regard.)


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 5:05 PM Theodoric has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8579
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 62 of 1309 (722904)
03-25-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
03-25-2014 4:35 PM


Faith writes:

IDIOT!

You're not helping.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 4:35 PM Faith has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 63 of 1309 (722906)
03-25-2014 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tangle
03-24-2014 3:17 PM


Putting all academic, scientific and philosophical arguments aside for the moment, let me set you a challenge.

For me to win this challenge I'm relying on the probability of you being a heterosexual - and that you are male.

Go to any gay porn site. Do it late at night, possibly after you've had a beer or two and see if you can get an erection "by choice".

I've tried this and it doesn't work for me, but I'm a sample of one, so maybe it's not representative. (But I'm betting it is).

Report back and give us the result. (This is one experiment that you CAN try at home.)

Nice try but you fail at a few points. One this would not work unless you had a large enough sample size to weed out randomness. Second it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.

According to the research I linked and others that I have seen. Homosexuality is brought on by environmental factors and habituated using the brains propensity to reward success (ejaculation or orgasm). These reinforcing brain chemicals form an addiction much like heroin or cocaine or caffeine or strawberries. So that by chemical reinforcement a homosexual would get aroused by seeing those pictures or videos.

The research, if you didn't read the link, cites things like overprotective mothers and distant or absent fathers along with sexual abuse at early ages as the cause of homosexuality. So its more akin to a mental psychosis (not exactly, I'm looking for a more neutral word) than it is to anything else. Other research indicates that it can be brought on by serotonin imbalances which cause the inability to distinguish between the different genders which later can be reinforced chemically as above to lead into homosexuality.

The one thing that most people don't understand is that it is reversible and treatable. There are many testimonies of willing people that have undergone therapy to reverse their (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one) addition to the same gender and who live normal lives afterwords.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 03-25-2014 5:44 PM lokiare has replied
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 5:54 PM lokiare has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 6:20 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 202 by Larni, posted 03-27-2014 6:14 AM lokiare has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 64 of 1309 (722908)
03-25-2014 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Theodoric
03-25-2014 5:05 PM


That they cannot from the act is a strawman.

That is your assumption based on Faith's other views expressed in other threads. I can see how this could be assumed if, and only if, you take her statement out of the narrow specific context I see as her point expressed in this thread. I am not sure this is appropriate here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 5:05 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 5:44 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 5:54 PM AZPaul3 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 65 of 1309 (722909)
03-25-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:24 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry.

But refusing to bake someone a cake because they are gay is, in fact, bigotry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:24 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8579
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(5)
Message 66 of 1309 (722910)
03-25-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:36 PM


locklare writes:

Nice try

Chicken.

One this would not work unless you had a large enough sample size to weed out randomness. Second it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.

This is a personal challenge, we've put aside randomised samples and control groups. This is about YOU personally. A sample of 1. I'm asking you to put your hand in the wound, Thomas.

Go look at a gay porn site and see if you can get an erection. Let us know how you get on.

The one thing that most people don't understand is that it is reversible and treatable. There are many testimonies of willing people that have undergone therapy to reverse their (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one) addition to the same gender and who live normal lives afterwords.

And this is total, absolute and revolting drivel, but we can discuss it later.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:36 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:54 PM Tangle has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 67 of 1309 (722911)
03-25-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AZPaul3
03-25-2014 5:38 PM


I can see how this could be assumed if, and only if, you take her statement out of the narrow specific context I see as her point expressed in this thread.

Do you really think that Pressie was trying to imply that homosexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy?

No matter what the context is, this reply can never be accurate:

quote:
The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 5:38 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 6:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 68 of 1309 (722912)
03-25-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:14 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
Do you have any proof that "... that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice.". Studies? surveys? anything to factually back this up and negate the link I posted that lists many studies showing it is environmental and choice based?

Actually, it lists no studies showing that homosexuality is "choice based". This rather tends to vitiate your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:14 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 69 of 1309 (722913)
03-25-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
03-25-2014 5:43 AM


The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.

Neither do worker bees, and yet their genes still get passed on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 5:43 AM Faith has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 70 of 1309 (722917)
03-25-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:27 PM


Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion.

Your free exercise of religion stops where you interfere with others' free rights of conscience.

... now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct ...

No. It is a tort action, not criminal. There is a major difference. It may become criminal at some time in the future just like racial discrimination is today. And it our secular society decides to criminalize this religious form of bigotry the all the better.

Someone's sexual orientation is none of your business. Keep your hate in your church, not in my marketplace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 71 of 1309 (722918)
03-25-2014 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:36 PM


So its more akin to a mental psychosis (not exactly, I'm looking for a more neutral word) [...] (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one)

"Sexual orientation". You're welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:36 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7416
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 72 of 1309 (722919)
03-25-2014 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AZPaul3
03-25-2014 5:38 PM


Did she say this?
The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.

I rest my case. That is her claim as to why there is no evolution. If there was such a thing as evolution there would be no homosexuality. They would have evolved out of existence, because homosexuals cannot reproduce. That is inaccurate and a strawman.

Also her bigotry is shown by he reactions when she is challenged on it. Finally, this thread does not exist in a vacuum. We know about he Faith's bigotry from other threads on the subject. I am not going to just ignore it here. That would be ludicrous.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 5:38 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 6:08 PM Theodoric has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 73 of 1309 (722920)
03-25-2014 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
03-24-2014 3:26 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Well, gay people can still make babies. When a gay man puts his penis into a lesbian's vagina... well, I'm sure you know how babies are made.

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex. So short of modern chemicals that stimulate an erection it really should have been evolved out, unless it doesn't come from genetics and is purely or mostly environmental.

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.

Sexual attraction sure feels biological to me. I mean, when my girlfriend gets naked in front of me, I just start getting an erection. I don't think about it. I don't choose it. It just happens.

Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry. So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics.

If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?

No, not necessarily. Why?

See above.

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).

Or like, say, your religion? And if its a result of your environment, then it isn't necessarily a choice. If you get hit by a car and you're disabled, then that wasn't a choice. But will still make sure businesses have an entrance ramp so you can wheel yourself in there, despite the fact that you were a product of your environment.

Well if you assume its some kind of disability as you compare it to above then sure, if seeking treatment for it, they should not be discriminated against (really no one should be discriminated against, but what some consider discrimination or bigotry is merely disagreement). However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services that would be incurred by a business that didn't refuse service to homosexuals. Comparing it to religion is kind of a false comparison. I don't remember any wars over homosexuality or any mass persecutions (it was merely viewed as a mental illness up until the 60's).

So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?

Society is going the route of it legally being a protected class, like race or gender.

Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed. The phrase "Which one is not like the others" comes to mind.

I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

What evidence for homosexuality being a choice and being an environmental condition does that link have?

Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).

quote:
Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."
December 13, 2004

Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 11:51:59 AM by Laissez-faire capitalist

1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a "gay gene":

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

2.) Dr. Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not negate the psychosocial factors."

("New Evidence of a "Gay Gene," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, Vol. 146. Issue 20, p.95)

3.) British researchers generated comparable results in an identical-twin study. Their conclusion? The suprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual.

The study by them: "confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation."

(King, M and McDonald, E. Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 160: 407-409 (1992).

4a.)Homosexual researcher Simon Levay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals:

"I didn't show that gay men are born that way the msot common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

4b.)Dr. Simon Levay: The most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.

Levay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

5.) Dr. J. Satinover:

"Research studies on homosexuality by Dr's Dean Hamer, Michael Bailey, Richard Dillard, Simon Levay. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski have failed to show proof of a gay gene. There is no scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic. The media has sensationalized and perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene."

Satinover, J. M.D. (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids. Baker Books

6.) Another of Dr. Jeffery Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":

"There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the resaerch itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do when speaking in sound bites to the public."

(Jeffery Satinover, M.D. The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8)

7.) The American Psychological Association:

"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for many people at an early age through complex interactions of biology, psychological and social factors."

(The American Psychological Association's pamphlet "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

8.) The American Psychiatric Association (2000):

"no replicated scientific studies showing any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

9.) Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

(Goldberg, Steven (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

10a.) Science, 1994:

"Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter: "It's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated...all were announced with great fanfare, all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

(Mann, C. "Genes and Behavior." Science 264: 1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689.)

10b.) "The interactions of genes and environment is much more complex than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press."

Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689

11.) Two genetics researchers, one at Harvard, commented in Technology Review, July 1993 p. 60 concerning twin study's.

"While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data, in fact, provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."

(Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July 1993. p.60)

12.) P. Scott Richards:

"Some environmental and psychological factors that may play a causal role in the development of homosexuality include: (1) cross-gender effiminate behavior in childhood. (2) gender-identity deficits (3) hostile, dteached or absent fathers (which leads to "defensive detachment" from the father and other males) and (4) overly close, controlling or dominating mothers.

(P. Scott Richards, "The Treatment of Homosexuality: Some Historical, Contemporary and Personal Perspectives," AMCAP Journal. Vol 19, No. 1, 1993, pg. 36)

13.) Lesbian biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, responding to the "born that way" argument:

"It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sawy in court. For me, it's a very shaky palce. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral one."

14.) Camille Paglia, lesbiam activist: "Homosexuality is 'not normal'. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

Camille Paglia: " Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is highly refractory, and once the sensory pathways have been blazed -- a phenmenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perferctly worthy aim."

Camille Paglia: " We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubscent stage where children anxiously band together bt gender...current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice'; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer to deal with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort."

Boys victimized by older men are far more likely to be homosexual as adults, and the cycle often repeats itself. More environmental factors.

15.) Noted child sex-abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likley to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their victimization experiences."

(Bill Watkins & Aaron Bentovim, "The Sexual Bause of Male Adolescents: A Review of Current Research, " Journal of Child Psychiatry 33, (1992); in Byren Finkelman, Sexual Abuse(New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 316

16.) The Archives of Sexual Behavior:

"One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender."

(Marie, E. Tomeo "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons." Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

17.) A study of 279 homosexual and bisexual men with Aids and control patients reported:

"More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20% by age 10 years."

(Harry W. Haverkos, "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501)

18.) A stduy of 229 convicted child molesters found that:

"86% of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."

(W.D. Erickson, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83)

19.) A National Institue of Justice report states that:

"the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people...who experienced no victimization as children."

(Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Later Criminal Consequences, Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief (March 1995): 6)

20.) A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59% of male child sex offenders had been victims of contact sexual abuse as a child.

(Michelle Elliott, "Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What offenders Tell Us" Child Abuse and Neglect 19, (1995): 582)


What are your thoughts, counter evidence (but not inflammatory or insulting responses)?

I'll need to see evidence, as opposed to a bare link, to figure out what kind of counter-evidence you'll need.

Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2014 6:01 PM lokiare has replied
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 7:04 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 7:26 PM lokiare has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 74 of 1309 (722921)
03-25-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:24 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
In fact its the religious freedoms that forcing those things would violate....

Nope - you and your church are free to have any beliefs you want to, but when you offer a public service you are expected to offer that service to anyone -- because you need to respect the beliefs of others rather than try to hold them to your beliefs: that is religious freedom.

It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.

So you expressed you bigoted view and found out that some people were annoyed by it.

Did you learn anything by this experience?

The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry.

Sorry, you are free to have bigoted beliefs and people are free to persecute you for being bigoted -- that is what freedom is about.

Trying to paper over your bigotry by calling it dislike, to pretend that you are not a bigot, is your option. It doesn't fool anyone but you.

You can dislike chocolate ice-cream, but if you try to prevent other people from eating chocolate ice-cream then you are going much further than just dislike.

The second thing is we have to get rid of all those signs and clauses in contracts that say "we can do these things without having a reason at all.".

This is nonsense -- perhaps you could explain better with an example?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:24 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:14 PM RAZD has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 75 of 1309 (722922)
03-25-2014 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-24-2014 2:41 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

There are 2 plausible explanations.

First, the alleles responsible for homosexuality are also involved in other important and beneficial adaptations. We see the same situation with sickle cell anemia where heterozygotes are protected against malaria which selects for the allele, even though there is negative selection in the case of homozygotes. Any negative selection caused by a preference for the same sex may be outweighed by other factors that increase fitness.

Second, social species do not have to personally reproduce in order to pass on their genes. This is called kin selection. If you are able to support your siblings and increase their chances of having children then you are also increasing the chances that the genes you carry will be passed on.

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).

Two bad conclusions here. First, homosexuality is a biological drive as much as heterosexuality is.

Second, we don't decide what is and isn't legal by what is or isn't "natural". We could argue that wearing clothes is not a natural or biological process, so we should outlaw it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems that you are committing the Naturalistic fallacy here.

I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

Free Republic? No thanks.

Do you have any scientific references?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-24-2014 2:41 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:23 PM Taq has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022